Fairweather

Yes, fire at will.

seems remarkable a man w/ a taste for history would need the details, but okay from part of wikipedia's page on lincoln's first inaugural address: Lincoln opened his speech by first indicating that he would not touch on "those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement." The remainder of the speech would address the concerns of Southerners, who were apprehensive that "by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered." Lincoln emphatically denied this assertion, and invited his listeners to consider his past speeches on the subject of slavery, together with the platform adopted by the Republican Party, which explicitly guaranteed the right of each individual state to decide for itself on the subject of slavery, together with the right of each state to be free from coercion of any kind from other states, or the Federal government. He went on to address several other points of particular interest at the time: 1.Slavery: Lincoln stated emphatically that he had "...no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." 5.Protection of slavery: Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no objection to the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already been approved by both houses of the United States Congress. This amendment would have formally protected slavery in those states in which it already existed, and assured to each state the right to establish or repudiate it. Lincoln indicated that he thought that this right was already protected in the original Constitution, and thus that the Corwin Amendment merely reiterated what it already contained. 6.Slavery in the Territories: Lincoln asserted that nothing in the Constitution expressly said what either could or could not be done regarding slavery in the territories. He indicated his willingness to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, so long as free blacks could be protected from being kidnapped and illegally sold into slavery through its misuse. Sorry Ivan (and Off), but you're trying to pull off a neat little trick. Your claim was that the Republican Party told the southern states they could keep their slaves. They certainly did no such thing. The Republican Party Platform of 1860 spells it out in plain language in position statement #8 and elsewhere: 8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States. Also: Supplementary Resolution. Resolved, That we deeply sympathize with those men who have been driven, some from their native States and others from the States of their adoption, and are now exiled from their homes on account of their opinions; and we hold the Democratic Party responsible for this gross violation of that clause of the Constitution which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. You're right about political deception, I suppose. When a candidate--be it Obama or Lincoln--goes off script, it creates confusion and angst. Certainly the south saw right through Lincoln's lies. Still, you seem hung up on credentials, so I acknowledge and congratulate you on your board certification. And to answer Off White's standard Drudge/FoxNews nonsense, as well as your little barb, I not too long ago completed my M.A. at the University of Washington in a closely-related field, so this stuff is pretty fresh.

This is exactly what I'll end up doing. I have to say that I have been amazed at how negotiable dr and dds rates are when you pay cash. I left "the system" about five months ago and have spent far less in dr bills than I did premiums in a "Cadillac" health plan through my former employer. One example: my wife had a crown fitted two months ago--$1300. When she pulled out cash, they gave her 40% off. Ironically, when we had dental, a crown was only covered at 50% "usual and customary" which really penned out to, guess what, 40%! Paying cash--at least for the smaller stuff--is at least a break-even prop to having insurance. I am coming to believe that the insurance market maybe should be catastrophic only. The auto insurance industry operates this way, eg, they don;t cover routine maintenance--only wrecks. And their rates reflect market realities because of it. No so the medical insurance industry--pre or post ACA. The market will continue to be artificially inflated by masses who are insulated from the cost of their care--and doctors/hospitals willing to take advantage of this fact.

wahealthplanfinder.org. And yes, our household income is above the subsidized threshold. Still not a final quote as they don't seem to have a real grasp on their own rate system. They say they'll call me back--then don't. Why are you shopping the plans if you have insurance through your employer?

Not sure how this will happen, since I have no intention of paying nearly $900/mo for his plan with all the "preventive" care I'll rarely use. I was completely happy with my $376/mo catastrophic policy. It protected my house and my assets and, in the long run, I found it much cheaper to negotiate a cash price with doctors/dentists for routine visits anyhow. But I'm glad you're laughing that I lost my coverage. Nice.

This one is particularly obnoxious--especially for a guy with only 17 posts. What you seem to be saying is that anyone who doesn't think like you, vote like you, believe what you believe, or who expresses a contrarian opinion must, by default, be unhappy. Wow, what a small world you live in, friend. (Lemme guess: Seattle?) Truth is, there are about 20 other forums on this very site where one can express all the joys of life--and I regularly post in these very forums. Do you?

Your arrogance is apparent here. Now, I know you've been told over and over that this is true, but have you really thought it through? If so, I'd love to hear it. Health benefits? Sure, I'll buy it(broken bones, skulls, teeth notwithstanding). But what are these other benefits you speak of? Also, I'm sure the minimum wage worker driving the $1500 1985 Nissan held together with baling wire is quite happy that he's paying for the infrastructure improvements that allow you to ride your $3500 19lb carbon frame to work and, once again, reconfirm your HTT status at the office.

Maybe this is part of the reason he's now the lame duck mayor? FWIW, I can't wait until the new mayor fires that $95,000/year bike czar pizza delivery guy. Also, gotta love the way bicyclists always want someone else to pay for their privilege. Property taxes? Hell no!

Dude, that's about as revisionist as the Zinn bullshit you're teaching your pupils. You can't be serious. compare and contrast the '93 and '09 democratic healthcare reform initiatives - i'll take a venn diagram if you don't feel like writing the essay Feel free; you're the one making the claim. I'm still waiting for you to reveal the details of your earlier claim that Republicans told Southerners they could keep their slaves.

I guess you can come out of the closet now, eh? On one hand, I think it's pretty sad that Seattlites are willing to grab their ankles for government like this. On the other hand, I think it's refreshing that a lefty actually had the courage to run on a platform she believes in. (As opposed to a lot of socialist "Democrats" who say one thing to get elected and then something else once they're in office.)

Dude, that's about as revisionist as the Zinn bullshit you're teaching your pupils. You can't be serious.

I think you haven't read (or didn't care to respond to) my posts on the government shutdown. Still, I do think it's funny how calls from the left for civility and balance only appear when their party is fucking things up. The party of "no"? Hell, when Christie is elected in 2016--and the Dems control one or both chambers of Congress--we'll see who the party of no is. And all these calls for decorum around here will be a thing of the past. And FWIW, at the risk of falling into the same cliche I accused you of tossing out, I will say I don't really care for the Republican Party--particularly certain parts of their social agenda. Rather, I have utter contempt for Democrats and their idiotic solutions to complex problems. With few exceptions, they strike me as populists offering to extinguish the very fires they helped to start. I'll ask you the same thing you asked me: Do you really believe all the crap the Democrat party tries to shove down our throats?

Gotta love when one party bashes the other, yet they have such a narrow and myopic view that they are not willing to look at how f'd up there "own" party is. The R's have really alienated all but the stupidestestesstes and/or stubornestestes of the voting populations. Not that I'm a big fan of the D's either but the party of no, hate and vitriol are pretty much a laughing stock to "most" of us here in reality. Trying to hang on to what whitey has left as it slips through there greedy, power hungry fingers... Lemme guess, you're fresh outta school? I think you missed a few of the caricatures that you were taught, but you did include the requisite "not that I'm a big fan of those Democrats, but..." Still, it's pretty clear you're among the young, entitled, and willing dupes that the Democrat party absolutely craves. BTW: it's spelled t-h-e-i-r. Are you sure you're not one of them stupidestestesstes Republicans?

I recall a fumarole near the top of Steele Cliffs, just left of and below the WyEast Chimney exit, on the east-facing aspect. I haven't climbed the route since the early 1990s, but I recall that it was strong enough to give off a hissing sound. I've also smelled sulfur near the head of the Scimitar Glacier on Glacier Peak--but never saw any steam or fumarole.

Gotta love these hordes of Democrats who are up for election in 2014 and are now demanding the president make changes to the very same bill they used to support. What a pathetic bunch the Ds are.

OMG, TELL ME HE IS NOT HAVING A CAMPFIRE ON TIGER MOUNTAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The state site is working fine!" NOT. Geez, you need to wake up, guy.

That's for bigger contributors. You'll just have to settle for that embroidered hanky.

Yep, that's the guy I hate.

Ah, the lengths Obama's minions will go to just to make the pieces of their shattered utopia fit back together. Dude, there is no saving this turd. One of the pillars that supports it was a lie from the beginning. Of course, you're talking about having people shot--but God forbid, I call someone a liar.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-clinton-obama-honor-commitment-163246342.html House Energy and Commerce Chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) has introduced a bill that the House will vote on later this week. It would "grandfather" in all health insurance plans that existed as of Jan. 1, 2013, not March 23, 2010, meaning that insurers could continue to offer a number of plans that they have been forced to cancel under the Affordable Care Act. Clinton preceded his comments by telling the story of a man he met last week, who he said doesn't qualify for subsidies because he makes more than 400% above the federal poverty level. He has a wife and two children, and Clinton said his policy was canceled and replaced by one that doubled his premium. "They are the ones who heard the promise, 'If you like what you've got, you can keep it,'" Clinton said.

Not much to disagree with here--except the education component should be equally placed on the cyclists. I visit the UW campus regularly, and I can tell you that the University Way entrance is a great place to watch their misdeeds in real time.

This is the most popular one, and I hear it a lot from my road bike friends. But by this same logic, I shouldn't have to license my motorcycle either, no? I mean, I own a car too, so the logic flows, right? Ridiculous. It's your logic that doesn't flow here. Is the tax burden of your motorcycle equivalent to your automobile? Cuz I sure see an awful lot of lunatics on crotch rockets. Some of them even murder cyclists and get away with it. The solution to an enforcment problem is not taxation. But I'm willing to meet you halfway - we adopt the dutch model, in the event of an accident the motorist is always at fault unless it can be proven otherwise, and I'll support licensure, and perhaps even modest ADDITIONAL taxation of cyclists. No dice; too many stupid/crazy/angst-filled bicyclists. As for motorcycles, yes, they cost about the same to license as cars. My 2001 750cc Honda is $57/year; my 2012 Toyota Yaris is $78. Your logic is still flawed. Edit: Ok, deal! Since the legal burden you just described is the status quo, I accept your revisions. When shall we begin taxing these entitled scofflaws?

I don't ride on the streets. Too dangerous. I ride trails and big hills that you probably wouldn't handle well anyhow. In any event, I don't necessarily "want" to ride with you--I simply extended an invitation to you, that is, to join us on one of our rides. And you still are welcome to do so.

This is the most popular one, and I hear it a lot from my road bike friends. But by this same logic, I shouldn't have to license my motorcycle either, no? I mean, I own a car too, so the logic flows, right? Ridiculous.